Jump to content

Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market


Ace41690

Recommended Posts

I hope it comes back with a fresh new UI where iPhone users could map glad I downloaded it before they took it off .

 

Sensorly is waiting for Apple to ok the updated App. Speedtest was broken on the old one. Sorry, the mapping won't be available according to Sensorly guy/gal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Sensorly is waiting for Apple to ok the updated App. Speedtest was broken on the old one. Sorry, the mapping won't be available according to Sensorly guy/gal.

 

Okay thanks for the update .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or is Samsung better at deploying NV than alcatel. The Samsung equipment seems more efficient. Samsung is used in Chicago where LTE and 3g goes live faster than the alcatel equipment that we use in NY. Here a cluster must be complete before NV 3g Goes live then after that 4G lte goes live but it takes some time.. some people have been saying that Samsung doesn't need to wait for clusters to launch 3g and lte can go live at a site much faster. Also much of Chicago gets 800 voice faster than we get as well. Hoping in the end the results will be the same...Any thoughts?

 

Ok just answered my own question...

 

its not efficiency its method..Samsung is deploying using a better method in my opinion.

 

Difference in vendors. Every vendor is installing both 3G and LTE equipment at each site at the same time. However, the 3G upgrades have to be brought online in clusters. LTE does not need to be brought online in clusters.

 

So Samsung and Ericsson decided to bring up their LTE first. Alcatel Lucent decided to bring up their 3G clusters first and then come back and bring up LTE. I'm not certain of the reasons behind the decision. It's just the way every AlcaLu market has been, except Norfolk, Raleigh/Durham and Charlotte.

Edited by TonyStylesNYC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcalu also has more sites online than the other companies though. I think that they are doing really well. Their towers virtually only have to wait on backhaul. Once backhaul is in place, they can just throw on 4G easily. I think Chicago isn't a good example because the reason they are so far ahead is because of compatibility issues with the equipment there and NV equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, I am staying overnight at Gettysberg College. I realize that this is a Shentel area, but the speeds are gorgeous. 4G is everywhere even indoors! I love it!

 

Even on the PCS G spectrum that Sprint/Shentel has there? Whoa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Even on the PCS G spectrum that Sprint/Shentel has there? Whoa.

 

Shentel has a very dense PCS network. Much denser than Sprint has in similar size communities.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcalu also has more sites online than the other companies though. I think that they are doing really well. Their towers virtually only have to wait on backhaul. Once backhaul is in place, they can just throw on 4G easily. I think Chicago isn't a good example because the reason they are so far ahead is because of compatibility issues with the equipment there and NV equipment.

 

Yeah up until like September it was almost hectic to be a sprint customer here in Chicago but once most of the old equipment left things started to look better now we are almost done.

 

Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus rockin 4.2.2 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My phone is chewing up my battery in this spotty coverage. I don't use much data when I'm out and about so I can't just keep it on 3G only or turn data off entirely. In which case my phone lasts forever lol.

 

I've only used 1 Gb of 3G data and 400 mb of 4G data thus far and my cycle ends in 3 days. (Give it I am on wifi a lot thankfully).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, no. You are going to need to produce some documentation to back up that assertion.

 

AJ

 

Seems like T-mobile is announcing fully converted cities for LTE. Well that's what the CEO said during the press conference. But since NYC isn't on the initial list of cities, I can't say for sure. I hope Sprint finishes LTE before they do here in NYC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seems like T-mobile is announcing fully converted cities for LTE. Well that's what the CEO said during the press conference. But since NYC isn't on the initial list of cities, I can't say for sure. I hope Sprint finishes LTE before they do here in NYC.

 

Please show me the quote where he says every site has been converted? Fact of the matter is no provider is going to wait for that. With the types of cash outlays it requires to do these type of enhancements, I'm pretty sure everyone wants to brag ASAP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show me the quote where he says every site has been converted? Fact of the matter is no provider is going to wait for that. With the types of cash outlays it requires to do these type of enhancements, I'm pretty sure everyone wants to brag ASAP.

 

I don't have a quote. I was tracking the live blogs and that's what one of the bloggers said. I went back and can't seem to find it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I guess we will see the sensorly maps with mapped area of the cities that was announced and know if it was everywhere or in spots. Even that I know isn't accurate. No proof to argue for it or against it I guess unless you live in those places and have T-Mobile phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't have a quote. I was tracking the live blogs and that's what one of the bloggers said. I went back and can't seem to find it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I guess we will see the sensorly maps with mapped area of the cities that was announced and know if it was everywhere or in spots. Even that I know isn't accurate. No proof to argue for it or against it I guess unless you live in those places and have T-Mobile phone.

 

You can still provide nearly full coverage without having every site converted. This is how Sprint has launched every market. The initial once not so much, but subsequent market launches have come when there is nearly 100% coverage, but maybe 40% of sites converted. I doubt T-Mobile will wait for every site to be converted before launching the market. We just don't have the same kind of data on them that we do with Sprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

whenever I see these kind of videos, i feel like i made a bad decision sticking with sprint. good job t mobile. they have strong HSPA+ in NYC and it seems like they are working hard on their LTE.

 

So then go to T-Mobile , Sprint is working hard on there LTE as well , if you can't wait then go to T-Mobile , I hear they have unlimited service too .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then go to T-Mobile , Sprint is working hard on there LTE as well , if you can't wait then go to T-Mobile , I hear they have unlimited service too .

 

too late. already upgraded. thanks for your recommendation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its comical that these conversations exist on this board. With so much great information being posted about how volatile wireless networks can be from street to street, market to market, and carrier to carrier, why add to the marketing FUD? I'd personally like to see way less banter about these apples to oranges comparisons...

 

I've learned a great deal from the great contributors @ S4GRU. Keep it up guys

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its comical that these conversations exist on this board. With so much great information being posted about how volatile wireless networks can be from street to street, market to market, and carrier to carrier, why add to the marketing FUD? I'd personally like to see way less banter about these apples to oranges comparisons...

 

I've learned a great deal from the great contributors @ S4GRU. Keep it up guys

 

Agreed, why people come to this board to bash Sprint and revere other carriers is beyond me. That seems pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
    • So how does this whole direct to satellite thing fit in with the way it works now? Carriers spend billions for licenses for specific areas. So now T-Mobile can offer service direct to customers without having a Terrestrial license first?
    • I wouldn’t be shocked if it’s Verizon, too. In my area they have multiple nodes on the same block as full macro sites with mmWave, in direct line of sight. 
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...